Kota Kinabalu: Sabah NGO, Registered Trustees of Sabah Action Body Advocating Rights (Sabar), is seeking public donations of at least RM500,000 for its public interest litigation case before the High Court, spokesman and senior lawyer Jeyan Marimuttu told a press conference, Tuesday.
It is to pay for an expert opinion and professional report to counter the Federal Government’s expert opinion for its High Court case hearing on Dec 1, 2026 challenging the Continental Sea Act (CSA), Petroleum Development Act (PDA), Petroleum Mining Act (PMA) and the Territorial Sea Act (TSA).
“The current status is that we have to inform the High Court whether or not we will be engaging our own expert and how long it is going to take.
“The other thing is that because we have also filed an application to refer constitutional issues to the Federal Court, the High Court is saying they will only consider that question after this first question on the expert report has been decided.”The event was attended by Sabar Board of Directors and Trustees led by Chairman Datuk Zainie Aucasa who vowed that, “Sabar will pursue this public interest action with all vigour for the people of Sabah.
While we may be hampered by want of funds, our determination in pursuing the cause of justice for the people of Sabah under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 and the Federal Constitution will not waver.”According to Sabar’s lead counsel for the case, Roland Cheng, the chance of winning is bright to secure state and people’s rights over Sabah’s sea boundaries and offshore resources, with the ultimate benefactors being the people of Sabah.
He said the Sabah Government intends to intervene in Sabar’s High Court case, a decision is pending. Sabar does not object and sees potential benefit in support if the intervention is allowed.
Nevertheless, Sabar is determined to pursue its case with its own expert to testify an opinion.
He said Sabar’s legal team including senior lawyer Datuk Alex Decena could proceed without its own expert, relying on cross-examining federal engaged experts, but this is viewed as a handicap as the litigation is expected to be lengthy, and likely proceeding through appellate courts.
Experts have been shortlisted, prioritising academic standing and international reputation. Sabar founding lawyer Robert Munang said RM500,000 is modest as the sum is less than £100,000 in foreign exchange rate to counter the federal engaged foreign expert from the United Kingdom.
Media support is crucial to boost contributions to secure a credible expert and for public understanding.
At the press conference, Sabar lawyers explained why the Federal Court rejected its bid to intervene in the Sarawak Government’s petroleum rights petition on Aug 28, 2026.
While the Federal Court recognised Sabar’s bid as a public interest litigation case, the bench noted that the outcome of Sarawak’s case would not impact Sabar’s separate legal proceedings at the Kota Kinabalu High Court regarding Sabah’s territorial and petroleum laws.
The three-member Federal Court bench, chaired by Datuk Nordin Hassan with Datuk Ruzima Ghazali and Datuk P Ravinthran, unanimously ruled that Sabar had no legal interest in Sarawak’s petition and that regardless of what happens with Sarawak’s petition, Sabar’s separate legal proceedings concerning Sabah’s territorial and petroleum-related laws will remain unaffected.
Nordin said that Sarawak’s petition entailed a dispute between the Federal and state governments, while Sabar, an NGO, was not a suitable party to intervene.
Senior Counsel Roland said this is important to overcome this ‘roadblock’ in case Sabar would be faulted in future for not intervening at this stage of the case hearing to protect Sabah’s interests by its legal stance with close similarity to Sarawak’s petition.
“The Federal Court’s decision on Sabar’s position is not a determination against Sabah’s petroleum or territorial claims. The Federal Court expressly preserved Sabar’s Originating Summons and reference application.”On Feb 23, 2026, the Sarawak Government filed a petition directly in the Federal Court against the Government of Malaysia, and Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas).
Sarawak asks the Federal Court to determine the constitutional validity and continued application in Sarawak of three federal statutes – the Petroleum Development Act 1974; the Continental Shelf Act 1966; and the Petroleum Mining Act.
Among the reliefs reportedly sought is a declaration that these Acts, insofar as they purport to apply to Sarawak, are unconstitutional and void ab initio (from the beginning).
Sarawak’s case is based on the propositions that Sarawak’s territorial boundaries, including its offshore territory and continental shelf had been established by pre-Malaysia laws and Orders in Council before Sept 16, 1963.
Those boundaries and associated proprietary or legislative rights were preserved when Sarawak formed Malaysia.
The three federal Acts subsequently purported to alter, restrict or transfer Sarawak’s rights over petroleum situated within those boundaries.
Parliament could not constitutionally remove or diminish those rights without complying with the special constitutional protections applicable to Sarawak, including provisions governing the alteration of a State’s boundaries.
Consequently, the federal petroleum regime – and particularly the nationwide vesting of petroleum rights in Petronas under the Petroleum Development Act 1974 – cannot automatically override Sarawak’s pre-existing rights.
